ironside, kristen deanna, d.m.a. james demars’s :...

IRONSIDE, KRISTEN DEANNA, D.M.A. James DeMars’s Concerto for Violin: The Process of Creating the Orchestral Reduction. (2016) Directed by Dr. James Douglass. 104 pp. Orchestral reductions for soloist and piano have been used for generations to aid

the rehearsal process and expand performance opportunities for concertos. Many do not

accurately represent the orchestral score or are not pianistic. As modern composers

contribute new concertos to the repertoire, skilled arrangers need to assist them in

creating pianistic and accurate reductions. James DeMars’s Concerto for Violin was

composed in 2004, and has not yet had a complete reduction created. DeMars has given

me permission to take on the reduction, and this paper outlines the process. The orchestra

score, recordings, and computer software were all essential tools in shaping the reduction.

I noted prominent melodies, rhythms, and textures which formed the basis for the piano

part. The product was tested at the piano, edited as needed, and reviewed by the

composer.

JAMES DEMARS’S CONCERTO FOR VIOLIN:

THE PROCESS OF CREATING THE

ORCHESTRAL REDUCTION

by

Kristen Deanna Ironside

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate School at

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Musical Arts

Greensboro 2016

Approved by James Douglass Committee Chair

ii

APPROVAL PAGE

This dissertation, written by Kristen Deanna Ironside, has been approved by the

following committee of the Faculty of The Graduate School at The University of North

Carolina at Greensboro.

Committee Chair James Douglass Committee Members Robert Wells Inara Zandmane Marjorie Bagley

October 13, 2016 Date of Acceptance by Committee October 13, 2016 Date of Final Oral Examination

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Prof. Bagley, Dr. Wells, and Dr.

Zandmane for serving on my committee. Thank you for not only providing input on this

dissertation, but allowing me to glean from your extensive knowledge over these past

several years. To my committee chair, Dr. Douglass, thank you for your dedication to this

project and for the years you spent helping me develop into a better musician.

To my parents, I have the deepest gratitude for your constant love and support in

all of my pursuits. From across the country, you have continued to be a wonderful source

of encouragement, believing in me whenever a task seemed impossible. I would never

have come this far without you.

Finally, I would like to thank my husband Brandon, who pursued his own DMA

right by my side. Your own hard work on this degree has been an inspiration to me.

Thank you for loving me, encouraging me, and more than anything, thank you for finding

ways to make me laugh, even on the most stressful days. You are my true joy and best

friend.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v CHAPTER I. IMPORTANCE OF REDUCTIONS ................................................................... 1

II. JAMES DEMARS AND THE CONCERTO FOR VIOLIN ................................ 4

III. REDUCTION PROCESS .................................................................................... 8

IV. MOVEMENT I .................................................................................................. 13

V. MOVEMENT II ................................................................................................. 27

VI. MOVEMENT III ............................................................................................... 35 VII. REDUCTION SCORE....................................................................................... 50

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 104

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1. Mvt. 1, mm.0-1, Orchestra ............................................................................ 15

Figure 2. Mvt. 1, mm.0-1, Reduction ........................................................................... 15

Figure 3. Mvt. 1, mm.1-4, Orchestra ............................................................................ 17


Figure 5. Mvt. 1, m.5, Low Strings ............................................................................... 18

Figure 6. Mvt. 1, m.5, Reduction LH ........................................................................... 19

Figure 7. Mvt. 1, m.8, Exact Transcription ................................................................... 19

Figure 8. Mvt. 1, m.8, Reduction RH ........................................................................... 19

Figure 9. Mvt. 1, m.10, Exact Transcription ................................................................. 20

Figure 10. Mvt. 1, m.10, Reduction RH ......................................................................... 20

Figure 11. Mvt. 1, m.20, Reduction ................................................................................ 21

Figure 12. Mvt. 1, m.21, Reduction Including Viola Line ............................................. 21


Figure 14. Mvt. 1, m.41, Wind, Brass, Timpani ............................................................. 22



Figure 17. Mvt. 1, mm.126-8, Harp and Flute Gesture .................................................. 25

Figure 18. Mvt. 1, mm.126-8, Reduction ....................................................................... 25

Figure 19. Mvt. 2, m.3, Reduction .................................................................................. 28

vi


Figure 21. Mvt. 2, mm.21-3, Upper Strings ................................................................... 29

Figure 22. Mvt. 2, mm.21-3, Reduction RH ................................................................... 29

Figure 23. Mvt. 2, mm.25-6, First Reduction ................................................................. 30

Figure 24. Mvt. 2, mm.25-6, Final Reduction ................................................................ 30

Figure 25. Mvt. 2, m.39, First Reduction ....................................................................... 31

Figure 26. Mvt. 2, m.39, Final Reduction ....................................................................... 31

Figure 27. Mvt. 2, m.44, Tremolo, Exact Transcription ................................................. 32

Figure 28. Mvt. 2, m.44, Tremolo, Reduction ................................................................ 32

Figure 29. Mvt. 2, mm.57-8, Reduction ......................................................................... 33

Figure 30. Mvt. 2, mm.99-100, Reduction ..................................................................... 34

Figure 31. Mvt. 2, mm.101-2, Reduction with Rearticulation ........................................ 34

Figure 32. Mvt. 2, mm.101-2, Reduction without Rearticulation .................................. 34

Figure 33. Mvt. 3, mm.1-2, Orchestra ............................................................................ 37



Figure 36. Mvt. 3, mm.47-8, Low Winds/Strings ........................................................... 40

Figure 37. Mvt. 3, mm.47-8, Reduction LH ................................................................... 40




vii


Figure 42. Mvt 3, mm.104-6, Strings ............................................................................. 42


Figure 44. Mvt. 3, mm.114-117, First Reduction ........................................................... 43

Figure 45. Mvt. 3 mm.114-117, Final Reduction ........................................................... 43

Figure 46. Mvt. 3, mm.121-2, Reduction RH ................................................................. 44

Figure 47. Mvt. 3, m.137, Brass ..................................................................................... 44

Figure 48. Mvt. 3, m.137, Reduction .............................................................................. 44

Figure 49. Mvt. 3, mm.145-6, First Reduction ............................................................... 45

Figure 50. Mvt. 3, mm.145-6, Final Reduction .............................................................. 45

Figure 51. Mvt. 3, mm.153-4, Cello ............................................................................... 45


Figure 53. Mvt. 3, m.167, Reduction .............................................................................. 47

Figure 54. Mvt. 3, m.171, Strings ................................................................................... 47

Figure 55. Mvt. 3, m.171, Reduction LH ....................................................................... 47


Figure 57. Mvt. 3, mm.208-11, Reduction ..................................................................... 49

1

CHAPTER I

IMPORTANCE OF REDUCTIONS

Concerto reductions give performers more opportunities to experience works

composed for a solo instrument with orchestra. A soloist can work with a pianist playing

the reduction for several reasons: to better understand the orchestra part outside the

context of listening to recordings, to play with the full harmonic and rhythmic

components of the orchestra without having one present, to prepare for a performance

with the orchestra, to perform a piece when no orchestra is available, or to simply allow

for more performances of the piece. Most soloists will utilize this type of rehearsal

process in preparation for an orchestral performance, so it is essential to have an

orchestral reduction available for a pianist. The availability of reductions greatly

increases performers access to music, and as new works are composed, the importance of

creating reductions for them continues.

The pianist’s principal role in playing the reduction is to prepare the soloist to

work with an orchestra by imitating the orchestra as closely as possible. To do this well

and efficiently, an accurate and idiomatic reduction is necessary. The reduction should

contain the prominent melodies, harmonies, or rhythmic textures of the orchestra at any

given moment. Due to the extreme range and number of voices in a full orchestra, a

pianist will not be able to play all of them. It is important to decide which are the most

prominent parts in the orchestra, and fill the reduction with only what the pianist can

2

fairly play, making it as pianistic as possible. Martin Katz discusses orchestral reductions

in his book, The Complete Collaborator. He emphasizes the need for them to be pianistic,

and that we should specifically aim to limit practicing difficult passages because we are

likely to have so many possibilities at the keyboard that can make the piece more

pianistic. He finds that “the most uncanny paradox exists: when we make ourselves

pianistically comfortable playing reductions, we acquire the means to sound orchestral.”1

Publishers in need of a reduction may employ anyone to write it. Reductions may

be created by those who are not pianists or performing musicians, and have not taken

these priorities into consideration. Someone unfamiliar with pianistic figurations and

capabilities cannot comfortably represent the orchestra at the piano. The reduction may

include too many components to make it playable, or perhaps fail to represent the

orchestra well when attempting to make it pianistic.

We see inaccurate orchestral representation in International Music’s edition of

Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto. In the reduction, measure 93 includes a quick right hand

arpeggio, similar to those earlier in the movement. These earlier measures fairly

accurately represent the clarinet and flute lines in the orchestra, and it is correct to include

them in the reduction as International has done. However, in measure 93, no instrument

in the orchestra plays any such arpeggio. To include it in a performance is therefore a

misrepresentation of the orchestra, and will only misguide soloists with whom a pianist

works.

1 Martin Katz, The Complete Collaborator: The Pianist as Partner (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 155.

3

The 1968 reduction of Francaix’s Clarinet Concerto demonstrates the results of

not prioritizing the components of the orchestra. Instead of reducing the orchestra to a

playable set of notes that give a clear indication of orchestral intent, essentially all of the

orchestral voices have been included. The result is a jumbled and technically impossible

score filled with thick chords at incredibly high speeds, leaps that are too large for the

tempo, a utilization of three or more areas of the keyboard that cannot be played by two

hands, or repeated notes nearly impossible to play with a keyboard action. The

publication simply does not fulfill the purpose of a reduction meant to be performed.

In order to ensure that reductions produced in the future are beneficial to

performers, care needs be to taken in the reduction process. The reducer’s two primary

concerns should be an accurate representation of the orchestra and the playability of the

score at the piano. Collaborative pianists are some of the more capable individuals to

accomplish this. As experienced pianists, they understand pianistic figurations that will

contribute to a comfortable reduction. As experienced collaborators, they have an

extensive knowledge of concerto repertoire and the preparation process—listening to and

imitating orchestras, studying orchestral scores, etc. As a collaborative pianist, my

experience has provided me with the knowledge to produce a pianistic yet accurate

representation of the orchestra.

4

CHAPTER II

JAMES DEMARS AND THE CONCERTO FOR VIOLIN

Composer and conductor Dr. James DeMars has written a variety of works,

ranging from a violin concerto and an opera to an African drum ensemble and Native

American flute, combining the classical tradition with world music. DeMars is the 2010

winner of the Arizona Artist of the Year Governor’s Award, and has had his music

performed worldwide by ensembles such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Phoenix

Symphony, Philadelphia Orchestra, and Choeur et Orchestre Francais D’Oratorio in

Paris. His piece, An American Requiem, was premiered at the Kennedy Center and

received nationally televised performances. DeMars is currently a composition professor

at Arizona State University, a position he has held since 1981.2

Reared in the small town of Battle Lake, Minnesota, DeMars (born 1952) studied

and listened to music throughout his childhood, but never saw an orchestra until the age

of 18. He went to Macalester College in St. Paul to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree, where

he immersed himself in music by studying piano, playing trombone in the orchestra, and

singing in the choir. DeMars then pursued conducting at the University of Southern

California, but he was not content in a conducting program. Having composed for many

years, he did not realize such a field could be his career until others made the suggestion.

He changed his pursuit, and when Dominick Argento won the Pulitzer Prize, DeMars

2 “James DeMars: Composer,” jamesdemars.net (accessed August 10, 2016).

5

moved back to Minnesota to study composition with him at the University of Minnesota,

where he would earn his doctorate.3

Argento changed the way DeMars composed. Composition programs emphasized

twelve tone music as the future, but after a well-prepared performance of Stockhausen,

DeMars felt he lost the audience when he performed that type of music. He was

surrounded by charts that could explain the details of his music, but Argento helped him

realize it was still not musical. After that experience, DeMars began to write pieces that

he would enjoy. Speaking of his studies with Argento, DeMars reflects on one of the

main principles he learned: “You have all these different parameters in music; it’s

probably not a good idea to do something strange with all of them at the same time.” For

example, if you have written in an odd meter, perhaps scale back the chromaticism.

DeMars was an active musician and composer in Minnesota, particularly with the

contemporary music group Zeitgeist Ensemble, whose many activities soon helped him

acquire a position at Arizona State University. In Arizona, he founded another

contemporary ensemble, Tos. By maintaining visibility through these groups, his

reputation as a composer grew and resulted in a number of commissions, many of which

came from the Phoenix Symphony.4

DeMars explains that the sonorities found in his music can be similar to those

found in music by Ginastera, Rózsa, and Debussy. While many composers today use

electronic music, DeMars still prefers acoustic music, appreciating that live acoustic

3 James DeMars, interview by author, August 8, 2016. 4 Ibid.

6

instruments bring people together for social gatherings. He describes this enjoyment:

“There’s a social side to music that I really like. The joy of a party after a concert is just

about as good as it gets.”5

Borivoj Martinic-Jercic, fifteen-year concertmaster with the Phoenix Symphony,6

approached DeMars about composing and performing music together during his time in

Phoenix. DeMars agreed, as long as a performance was secured. This turned into a

commission from the Phoenix Symphony to write his Concerto for Violin. Martinic-

Jercic, often referred to as Boro, worked regularly with DeMars throughout the

compositional process. They exchanged ideas about difficult passages for the violin. Boro

helped create the first movement cadenza, showing DeMars how tremolos can be

maintained underneath the melodic figure. Boro also convinced DeMars to keep the first

movement’s second theme when DeMars had planned to remove it.7

During the few years before writing the Concerto for Violin, DeMars had worked

on several pieces utilizing African drumming: a music drama with an African drum

ensemble and a Senegalese drum concerto. “So those rhythms were with me,” said

DeMars, reflecting on his composition of the violin concerto. He went on to use some of

these Senegalese rhythms directly from his African drum concerto in the violin piece.8

DeMars’s program notes on the piece describe the creation of the work from his

perspective:

5 DeMars, interview. 6 “Borivoj Martinic-Jercic,” Iowa State University, https://www.music.iastate.edu/faculty/borivoj.php (accessed August 10, 2016). 7 DeMars, interview. 8 Ibid.

7

The Concerto for Violin originated from a casual conversation on the elevator while Boro Martinic and I were teaching in Arizona. His suggestion of a concerto was expressed in a firm desire for lyric melody. It was my pleasure to have Boro provide many interpretations of each phrase and discuss the trajectory of the piece as I worked through the early drafts. Initially I used abstract structures and persistent distortions of phrase length that caused unusual juxtapositions of mood and sensation. As we rehearsed, these irregularities took on a meaning of their own and created a tension between the abstract and the visceral, a tension expressed in an emotional “push and pull” as the piece unfolds. There were also intuitive elements drawn from the African, Arabic and Spanish projects that I had worked on in the past and with each revision the abstract design was coming to life throughout a year of discovery. The three movements of Concerto for Violin place the soloist in three distinct settings, each of which presents a dichotomy. The first is a contrast of passions and aloof introversions culminating in a cadenza of arpeggiations and virtuosic double-stop tremolos. The second movement casts a cool eye on life and offers two sides of an intimate reflection. The work concludes with extroverted exchanges of sensuality and elegance.9

Robert Moody conducted the premiere of the Concerto for Violin on April 15,

2004, with Boro as soloist with the Phoenix Symphony. DeMars remembers that each

performance of the concerto had a good reception.10 The Arizona Republic described the

piece as being “strongly profiled, sumptuously scored, contoured lyricism and a

vivacious sense of rhythm.”11 Croatian-born Boro left the Phoenix Symphony in 2006 to

be concertmaster of I Solisti di Zagreb, a string ensemble in Zagreb, Croatia. Boro

actively brought in Americans to work with the ensemble, and DeMars revised the

concerto for this group in the fall of 2008 to be performed by solo violin and strings.12

9 James DeMars, program notes, e-mail message to author, August 8, 2016. 10 DeMars, interview. 11 “James DeMars: Composer.” 12 Demars, interview.

8

CHAPTER III

REDUCTION PROCESS

Before beginning work on any reduction, permission must be obtained from the

composer. I made contact with Dr. James DeMars in the fall semester of 2014, inquiring

if I might reduce his concerto for this project. He consented, and provided me with the

full orchestra score and the recordings of the premiere. This is the only recording

available and became a great resource throughout the reduction process.

The majority of time creating the reduction was spent using the notation software

Sibelius, with the orchestral score and recordings close at hand. The concerto is scored

for a full orchestra including two flutes, two oboes, English horn, two clarinets, bass

clarinet, two bassoons, contrabassoon, four horns, two trumpets, two trombones, bass

trombone, tuba, percussion, harp, two violin sections, viola section, cello section, bass

section, and solo violin.

I worked on a very small section at a time, typically about four measures. First, I

studied the orchestration of the section, and I formed a concept about those measures in

my mind—which instruments had the melody, which instruments had the strongest

rhythmic drive, which instruments acted primarily as ornamentation, which instruments

collaborated to form a unified figuration, and which instruments were likely to be more

prominent based on timbre or dynamic marking. Next, I listened to the small section of

music. I often repeated about ten seconds of material several times to fully comprehend

9

what I was hearing, then listened to a larger section to have more context. I took note of

what I heard, and determined whether the prominent components in the recording were in

agreement with what I found in the score. I decided what should be included in the

reduction based on a combination of the two studies. This is often the process pianists

must go through when they are given a bad reduction. Pianist Robert Spillman discusses

the thought process of approaching a poor reduction: pianists need to discover what is not

possible at the keyboard, what is not heard in the orchestra, or what would only be

confusing on the piano.13 Having a skilled pianist do this in the reduction process while

studying the score and listening to recordings will greatly reduce the practice and study

time for future performers.

Once I had an understanding of the orchestration based on the written score and

the recording, I began entering the piano reduction into Sibelius. I had previously entered

the entire violin line above the piano staves to keep track of how my arrangement

interacted with the solo violin. I entered the outer voices, then added other prominent

inner voices. Sometimes, upon completion of the measure, I would thin out the harmonies

if it created thick chords or large leaps that were not pianistic.

Regarding pianistic limitation, a line must be drawn somewhere. This can be

difficult to determine, as each pianist will have different capabilities and limitations. This

entire reduction is certainly at an advanced level—anything less would not represent the

orchestra well—but still idiomatic. When fewer orchestral components are needed or the

13 Robert Spillman, The Art of Accompanying: Master Lessons from the Repertoire (New York: Schirmer Books, 1985), 184.

10

tempo is slow, the reduction can be quite simple; when the orchestration is thick and has

quickly moving lines, it can be more difficult but comfortable with practice. I needed to

determine a size of chord span which would be the limit. In this area, limitations are

determined by hand size, not by ability or practice time. I want the reduction to be

accessible to most advanced pianists, and much of advanced piano music includes tenths.

Even skilled pianists can be uneasy about tenths, so my goal was to include them only

sparingly. When they are used, they are among the easier tenths to reach (minor tenths or

white-to-white tenths are easier to reach than the white-to-black major tenths), or played

at a time when the pianist has enough time to set up for them. The orchestra so often

covers a large range that to entirely eliminate tenths would have altered the sound of the

original orchestration. The opening of the first movement showcases the largest use of

tenths. An optional configuration spanning an octave has been included for this section to

make it accessible to a wider range of pianists.

When I created several bars that seemed to be a pianistic representation of the

orchestra, I added additional markings such as articulation and dynamics. I kept many

original articulation markings, and simply transferred them to my score. I also transferred

many of the original slur markings and notated instrumentation where very specific

orchestral colors needed to be reproduced. Dynamic markings were more difficult to

transfer to the reduction. Many times, the individual instruments or sections have varying

dynamics, so there is not one obvious dynamic to transfer. I often transferred the dynamic

marking of the specific instrument I used in the reduction. However, sometimes the

instrument copied into the right hand had a different dynamic marking than the one

11

copied into the left hand. In these instances, I took an average of the instruments to

determine a dynamic marking. Other times, I took into consideration the entire dynamic

range of the orchestra—from a solo instrument playing by itself to the full orchestra

playing fortissimo—to make a determination of where the specific section fits into the

spectrum. For example, a solo oboe playing forte by itself may come across softer than

the entire orchestra playing mezzo-piano. Specific examples will be listed in each chapter

summary.

I played through the reduction upon completion of each movement. While I tested

some small sections while reducing it, this was the first time I could play an entire

movement with each section in context. My primary goal in this step was to determine

the reduction’s playability. This required me to practice spots to make sure that with

some diligent practice, the passage could be played accurately. I made notes on the score

to suggest areas to re-work and circled areas that, while they could technically be played,

were rather awkward after practice. I removed notes that seemed to thicken chords

without benefiting the overall sound, and adjusted or removed markings that were

visually distracting. During this step, a compromise was set. A reduction can be the best

imitation of the orchestra we can produce, but compromise is necessary to make it

pianistic. As Philip Cranmer says regarding the creation of reductions in The Technique

of Accompaniment, “The making of them poses the same sort of problem that faces the

translator of a play or a poem: to retain the essential sense of the original, and at the same

12

time to make it sound stylish in the new language. Some sort of compromise is necessary

in both cases.”14

A second draft of each movement was created including the changes suggested by

my reading at the piano. This process—editing, playing, marking suggestions, and editing

again—was repeated as many times as necessary to create an arrangement that would be

comfortable. Then I corrected some of the visual formatting issues throughout the score

and shared the reduction with the composer and my dissertation committee for feedback.

The arrangement should accurately reflect DeMars’s concept of his piece, so working

through his suggestions was the final step to completing the reduction.

Overall, DeMars was pleased with the reduction. Composers are exhausted when

they finish large works, and creating a thorough reduction is not their first priority.

DeMars was glad to have someone else work through each measure for the arrangement.

DeMars did not request any large changes, as he thought the reduction was an accurate

representation of his music. He made a small list of suggestions for me, many of which

were small notational recommendations such as enharmonic notes (changing an F-sharp

to a G-flat), choice of rests (consistently using either eighth rests or quarter rests), and

adding extra slurs. He also noted two places that could be moved up an octave to make

the passage technically simpler if necessary, but after a few minutes at the piano, I

determined it was still manageable in the original octave. Moving the octave would make

it slightly easier, but the musical line may suffer.

14 Philip Cranmer, The Technique of Accompaniment (London: Dennis Dobson, 1970), 45–6.

13

CHAPTER IV

MOVEMENT I

DeMars’s vision for the first movement was for a longer movement, challenging

for both performer and audience, engaging, and “maybe a little more difficult to digest.”

Sonorities containing minor triads and major sevenths are common, along with split

intervals (i.e., a chord with a split third would include both a major and minor third) “to

make sure it’s a little more pungent.”15 Beginning with a flourish that leads into the

prominent Senegalese rhythm, the movement maintains its excitement from start to

finish.

Following is a detailed list regarding how decisions were made in the reduction

process of the first movement:

m.0 A combination of the flutes, clarinets, bass clarinet, harp, and timpani create a

sweeping motion from low to high in range and from soft to loud in volume, all

within the course of the two beats of pick-up. Since this gesture is created as a

composite of multiple instruments, I could not simply transcribe one or two of the

instruments. Rather, I noted the collection of pitches that created this motion: A,

B, C-sharp, E, F-sharp, and G. I needed an arpeggio or scale based on this set of

pitches. G and A were used the least frequently and have been left out of the

resulting arpeggio as the resulting harmonic difference with the two pitches added

15 DeMars, interview.

14

was not worth the complexity of the pianistic figuration. Leaving the two pitches

out creates a simple four note pattern in the right hand. A timpani roll on an E

growing from piano to mezzo-forte is sustained through the entire measure, so I

chose a low E to be the first and lowest resonating bass note. The bass clarinet

opens its arpeggio with an E to B leap, so I chose to do the same at the beginning

of the reduction. The rhythm in the harp is very quick, so by combining the pitch

collection of all instruments and the quick rhythmic element of the harp, I arrived

at the finished arrangement. The left hand can play the eighth note pick-up to

measure one (which begins the recurring rhythmic motive) because the right hand

is playing the arpeggio well above its range for those notes. Regarding beams, as

long as the beams and note placement help indicate hand divisions in the score,

the beams that connect a figure across two staves can go above, in between, or

below the notes.16 The beam of the first beat has been placed in between to create

a cleaner look.

16 Gardner Read, Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice, 2nd ed. (New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1979), 307.

15

Figure 1. Mvt. 1, mm.0-1, Orchestra.

Figure 2. Mvt. 1, mm.0-1, Reduction.

16

mm.1-4 The most important elements are the string melody (often reinforced in the

winds) and the pervading rhythmic motive heard most prominently in the brass

and low winds. The string melody was transcribed into the right hand,

maintaining the same octave as the first violins. The inner voices moving

parallel to the melody were included when the range and speed of the

figuration allowed for them. Most of the rhythmic elements (eighth, dotted

eighth, sixteenth) in the lower voices have been transcribed into the left hand.

Much of this was transcribed exactly as the low winds, brass, and strings play

it—an E, B, and G spanning a minor tenth. Slight variation is needed in beat

two of measure three. The original orchestration in the lower voices spans an

octave and a fifth, so I dropped the lower octave, and included the upper octave

with the fifth. The alteration makes it very playable, and hardly changes the

sound of the orchestration. This is an example of a change made regularly

throughout the concerto. When octaves were doubled in the orchestration, they

were sometimes changed to include another note in the harmony. The wind and

harp flourishes in these measures were unnecessary to include because the

more prominent melodic and rhythmic figures had already supplied a thick

reduction.

17


18


m.4 Inner voices from the English horn and viola were included in the first draft.

Upon testing at the piano, they were awkward to play and voice correctly, with

little added benefit. They were deleted in the edited version.

mm.5-6 The rhythmic motive continues in the low strings and spans a tenth. However,

the bass note is played on each beat, while the fifth and tenth are played in the

more typical dotted-eighth and sixteenth rhythm. A combination of these

rhythms would be too complicated for one hand, so I placed all three voices

into a single rhythm to match that of the fifth and tenth. Similar combinations

of rhythms were done throughout the concerto when one hand could not play

multiple rhythms without adding unnecessary complexity. To keep the

integrity of the orchestra score, these combinations always support the more

prominent rhythm, and will likely be unnoticeable to listeners. See measure

249 for another example that combines the violas and cellos.

Figure 5. Mvt. 1, m.5, Low Strings.

19

Figure 6. Mvt. 1, m.5, Reduction LH.

m.8 The violins begin a repeated sixteenth note pattern. An exact transcription would

include E and B on the first sixteenth and C and F-sharp on the second sixteenth. I

knew this would not be pianistic for the right hand to play with such quick

alternation between the two chords. My first draft slightly altered the orchestra by

placing F-sharp and B on the first chord and C and E on the second chord, still

maintaining two notes at a time on each sixteenth subdivision like the orchestra.

The new division fit the rotation of the hand better, but once I played this in

context, it was still an awkward figuration to play quickly. The later version

includes all three upper notes in the first chord, leaving the C by itself on the second

sixteenth. This is by far the most pianistic way to include all of the notes of the

pattern at a quick speed as it divides the rotation of the hand between the fingers

and thumb.

Figure 7. Mvt. 1, m.8, Exact Transcription.

Figure 8. Mvt. 1, m.8, Reduction RH.

20

m.10 An exact transcription of the violin parts into the right hand would be an example

of impossible repeated notes for the keyboard since an F-sharp occurs on every

sixteenth. The F-sharp has been removed from every other sixteenth, only needing

to be played on each eighth. The D major triad is still very apparent, and the

rotation of the hand established in measure 8 remains consistent.

Figure 9. Mvt. 1, m.10, Exact Transcription.

Figure 10. Mvt. 1, m.10, Reduction RH.

m.20 It is necessary to abandon the sixteenth note figure in the right hand in order to

play the flute line beginning on beat 4. The left hand can continue the rhythm on

its own for several bars while the right hand yields to the wind melody. The right

hand should continue sixteenths through the end of the third beat to maintain a

true orchestral representation as long as possible. This would create a leap of a

ninth within a sixteenth note, which is not necessarily difficult to do. However, in

this instance the hand would need to expand very quickly while also preparing to

voice the top note over the accompanimental sixteenth notes. This transition

would likely sound awkward and cumbersome. The final two sixteenth notes

21

before the flute line have been deleted to allow the hand time to prepare for the

leap and voicing change.

Figure 11. Mvt. 1, m.20, Reduction.

m.21 The first reduction exactly transcribed the viola and cello for the left hand. The

figuration became very awkward on each transcribed cello note (left hand eighth

notes). The sixteenth note in the viola line (F-sharp) was deleted during each cello

note in later versions. This maintains the sixteenth rhythm in single notes while

still keeping the punctuating cello notes.

Figure 12. Mvt. 1, m.21, Reduction Including Viola Line.


22

m.33 The marimba line has been taken down an octave to allow for the correct range of

the violin melody.

m.41 Complex ornamental lines are scattered across the woodwinds, but are impractical

to put in the reduction. They are also difficult to hear against the brass.

Figure 14. Mvt. 1, m.41, Wind, Brass, Timpani.

23


m.51 This measure includes the second violin and viola parts. The violas sustain a

dotted half note C which begins on beat 1. The second violins play the same C as

a quarter note on beat 2. This creates an overlapping unison that cannot be played

exactly as written because the C would have to be rearticulated on the second beat

rather than just sustaining. However, the solution is not to write the viola part as a

quarter note because it would leave a two beat gap in the voice leading. The

unison is not a perfect case, but it accurately portrays the orchestra part. In doing

this, the pianist can interpret how to best reproduce what is notated, whether they

seek to achieve a sustained sound through use of pedal, hand divisions, or

anything else.


m.61 I chose to primarily transcribe the oboe and bass clarinet lines. While most

of the winds give a sweeping motion upward, I needed to have at least one

24

voice for the treble and one voice for the bass. These two instruments

accurately represent the collection of pitches that are used across the section,

and individually have more pianistic lines than other instruments.

mm.63-7 The violins (moving in octaves), trumpet, and low strings (moving in

octaves) have been transcribed here. The violins and low strings by

themselves lack the full sound of the orchestra when put into the piano. I

considered adding the sixteenth note texture from the clarinets to fill out the

sound, as it would also fill in the middle register, but it would be very

awkward. I chose the trumpet because it fills in the middle range, providing

a fuller sound. It also shows the imitation between the voices, creating more

interest.

mm.72-4 The oboe line, beginning in measure 72, is notated as an inner voice, then

becomes the top voice in 73. The original score notates all accidentals as

flats. Distracting notation such as both a G-sharp and A-flat occurring in the

same chord would be the result of an exact transcription of the oboe, so I

have re-spelled them enharmonically as sharps to be more uniform with the

other voices.

mm.126-7 The gesture created by a combination of harp and flute is an important lead-

in to the next section beginning at 128, as it builds both volume and

excitement. To continue the viola and cello lines, an exact transcription of

the harp in 126 cannot take place. I wanted the rhythm of the strings to

continue, so I placed the harp and flute gestures above the viola. I

25

determined what the important pitches needed to be in the arpeggio—E-flat,

F-sharp, A, B-flat, and D. My goal was to imitate the contour of the lines

while using the same top turn-around notes that the harp utilized in its

arpeggio. With these guidelines, I was able to construct an arpeggio that fit

the desired range, changed directions on the top F-sharp, and still

contributed to the energy the piece needs leading into measure 128. The

arpeggio finishes on the downbeat of 128 on a G octave, the top G

representing the flute and harp, and the bottom G representing the oboes and

violins that take the piece into a new section.

Figure 17. Mvt. 1, mm.126-8, Harp and Flute Gesture.


26

mm.172-3 The orchestra sustains a large chord over these two measures, an open fifth of

E-flat and B-flat reinforced by several instruments throughout the orchestra.

The full score indicates that each instrument stop at different times as the

sound completely fades away over the two measures. The horns, tuba, and

basses stop at the end of 172, the trumpets and cellos a beat later, the second

violins after beat 3 in 173, and the violas sustain into the next bar. This

accomplishes a nice tapered sound in the orchestra, but can easily sound too

manufactured at the piano as each note is stopped one by one. The orchestral

instruments can individually fade out (most have diminuendos marked) and

the dynamics are within their control, but the piano will gradually fade over

the course of the two bars regardless of what we would like. Since the piano

naturally fades very evenly over the two bars, I left the entire chord sustained

to the end of 173. This solution makes it much easier visually, and will sound

more organic.

27

CHAPTER V

MOVEMENT II

The second movement contains very different orchestration than the outer

movements. The entire movement is scored for strings, harp, and solo violin only.

Because of the limited number of instruments, I was often able to include all the

orchestral parts into the reduction. This movement utilizes a contrast of major and minor

keys between the two themes, each with their own distinct tonal center. Just as the first

movement borrowed material from African rhythms, the second theme in this movement

is similar to DeMars’s cello piece, Dedicace.17

m.3 The second violins begin the movement with a tremolo that continues through the

end of measure 3. The first violins enter with a rising figuration that begins on beat

3 of the third measure, and their first note (G) is the same as one in the continuing

tremolo. A pianist could try to continue the tremolo to the end of the bar and voice

a G on the third beat to be a part of the melodic figure, but this could easily sound

very clumsy. The better solution is to end the tremolo at the end of beat 2, allowing

for a clear G from the first violins. The pedal can still sustain the sound of the

notes from the tremolo through the end of the bar if desired.


28


m.6 Using finger substitution on the ties, a pianist can sustain most of the ties in the

orchestra as the violins climb higher in range. When the range becomes too large,

inner voices are deleted. For example, the violas sustain an E from measure 4 into

measure 8. A pianist can continue the tie through the end of bar 5, but to continue

into measure 6 would create an interval of a fourteenth. Finger substitution is used

for the voices that can still be reached, and the E is dropped.


mm.21-3 These measures show a falling E minor harmony. It begins in the first violins,

then falls through the second violins and violas. Everything can be played on

the piano, but cannot be held by the fingers at once. To show the original

intent of the orchestra, all ties have been left in, and a pedal marking has been

added to suggest the best way to maneuver such a large chord at the keyboard.

29

Figure 21. Mvt. 2, mm.21-3, Upper Strings.

Figure 22. Mvt. 2, mm.21-3, Reduction RH.

mm.25-6 The violins essentially sustain through both measures. The viola enters in the

same range during the sustained notes, which can cause a bit of confusion on

the keyboard if it were directly transposed because some of the violin notes

would need to be rearticulated in the viola. The original reduction tried to

sustain the violins as long as possible and have the violas enter during the

sustained violin chord notated in a different voice. The measure was full of

ties and separate voices that did not benefit the overall sound, so I simplified

it. The violin lines are omitted when the viola enters. The sound will not be

cut off more abruptly than before, because the sound has already been dying

away for three and a half beats. The viola entrance can be notated as the same

voice, allowing for a much simpler visual representation.

30

Figure 23. Mvt. 2, mm.25-6, First Reduction.

Figure 24. Mvt. 2, mm.25-6, Final Reduction.

mm.33-5 The second violins and violas have leaping quarter notes leading into each

downbeat. Due to their placement, the lower note should be played with the

left hand, and the upper note with the right hand. The voicing can easily be

lost with this representation on paper, so lines have been added to indicate the

voice leading.

m.39 The first draft began with a transcription of the entire harp part, including a

few extra notes from the strings to fill in the harmony. Transcribed exactly,

the harp requires a half note on the fourth eighth note of the bar. It would be

immediately followed by a leap and rearticulations of some of the same notes,

which creates visual confusion for no reason. The pianist is not going to be

able to hold down the notes, and the sound would not last long due to the non-

sustaining nature of the harp (more like a piano than other orchestral

instruments that can sustain a dynamic). The pianist will likely already be

using pedal to attain the round, resonant sound of the harp. Later versions

changed the half note to an eighth note, allowing the pianist to leave the notes

31

freely as they would be required to do anyways. A similar change was done in

measure 45.

Figure 25. Mvt. 2, m.39, First Reduction.

Figure 26. Mvt. 2, m.39, Final Reduction.

m.44 The violins and violas have a falling sixteenth note gesture, and the violas are a

tenth below the first violins. To maintain the harmony without making it

unnecessarily difficult, I moved the viola line up an octave to create falling thirds.

Octave displacement like this is a good option to keep the harmonies of moving

tenths without the technical difficulty.

m.44 The violins and violas play a tremolo for the duration of beat 4. An exact

transcription would have the tremolo begin with E-flat, F, and C (bottom to top),

then rotate the hand back and forth to F, A-flat, and E-flat during the tremolo. It

would be impossible for a pianist to achieve a smooth tremolo with such

32

figuration. I took the four essential pitches—F, A-flat, C, and E-flat—to create a

pianistic tremolo that fits the rotation of the hand. This subtle change in the

tremolo would not be noticed by listeners.

Figure 27. Mvt. 2, m.44, Tremolo, Exact Transcription.

Figure 28. Mvt. 2, m.44, Tremolo, Reduction.

mm.51-3 The strings work together to create a phrase over the course of these three

bars. The full score shows small slur markings to indicate their bowings, but

in the midst of the continuous harp part in the reduction, this is not necessarily

helpful. To show the longer phrase as one idea coming from the strings, I have

added one long slur.

mm.57-8 The strings begin a melody on the last quarter note of measure 57. The harp

has a continuous eighth note motion spanning several octaves, and the string

melody begins in the middle of this range. This melody can still be heard if

the pianist produces clear voicing. The melody is not obvious within the

texture though, so the score needs to show the pianist where the melody

begins. The reduction has a bracket near the first melody note with “melody”

written above it to denote the starting point. It is in the middle of the

33

keyboard, so it begins in the left hand and moves to the right hand. The switch

is shown through a line leading from one melody note to the next.


m.85 This is an example of outer voices not being the most important voices in

the ensemble. The most prominent voices are the unison viola and cello

melody and the consistent eighth note rhythm. For several bars, the violins

are quite active, but cannot be added after both the melody and bass

support have been taken into consideration.

mm.99-100 The pianist must balance the two-note figure from the second violins with

the tremolo from the violas which includes the same note as the violins. It

is not ideal for a pianist, but can be done through clear voicing. The top

melodic note can be played quickly, and the hand can be moved out of the

way to accommodate for a smooth tremolo, so nothing was changed in the

orchestra when placed in the reduction.

34


mm.101-2 Unlike the previous example, the rearticulated E in the violins is not

necessary over the tremolo. It is no longer the most prominent voice, and the

tremolo is still giving us the pitch desired. Rearticulating an inner voice

would only interrupt the tremolo sound.

Figure 31. Mvt. 2, mm.101-2, Reduction with Rearticulation.

Figure 32. Mvt. 2, mm.101-2, Reduction without Rearticulation.

35

CHAPTER VI

MOVEMENT III

The third movement also has clear tonal centers. DeMars comments on his use of

keys and tonal centers with this: “I often think of whatever key that I’m in as having just

sort of different flavors for each scale degree, so you know, flat two has this kind of feel,

major seventh, minor seventh—they all have a sort of feel to them and that’s what I use

to sort of flavor the harmony and the melody.” The end of the movement is borrowed

from DeMars’s concerto for Native American flute. The violin concerto begins an

interplay at this point between meters, particularly 3/4 and 4/4, becoming more active

rhythmically, but less active harmonically.18

mm.1-2 The brass take on the primary voice as the movement begins, particularly the

trumpet as the top voice in the section. From the middle of measure 1 to the

middle of measure 2, the brass sustain a chord. The onset of their individual

notes all have an accent, then immediately piano. Over the course of the

sustained note, a crescendo leads to a sforzando. The piano, of course, cannot

produce this effect on the sustained note. I wanted to keep the brass in the

prominent role melodically, but I needed to look elsewhere to achieve the same

effect. There were two methods that could lead to the desired sound. First,

several instruments, including the timpani, tambourine, and lower strings, have


36

rolls or tremolo during the crescendo. This could be added into the left hand on

the sustained F-sharp. The orchestral instruments higher in range had a variety

of E minor scales during those beats, each with a different number of notes in

the grouping or different starting notes. Still wanting to emphasize the trumpet

melody, I could create an E minor scale that ended on the sforzando F-sharp.

Working backwards, I created a scale of sixteenth notes beginning one and a

half beats before the top of the scale.

37


38


m.6 The violas begin a tremolo (using B and C) that continues for more than

twenty bars. It is marked pianissimo and is not easily heard. It contributes

more to the sustained string sound, so my goal was simply to create a

sustained sound. The piano will fade quickly, which can be one of the more

difficult problems of creating reductions for the piano. The violin and viola

pitches have been rearticulated in the piano every few bars, primarily when

the solo violin has strong downbeats. At these times, the piano can

rearticulate the chord to create a sustained sound while hiding the attack

underneath the soloist’s moving notes.

mm.18-20 A bassoon solo enters in the midst of the very rhythmic trade-off between

the timpani and cellos. Both figurations are in the same low range of the

keyboard, seemingly creating a conflict. The bassoon solo can easily fit

between the repeated E’s of the left hand, and if the pianist keeps the right

hand close to the keyboard, the left hand can comfortably keep a steady

rhythm around the right hand. The last note of the solo doubles with the

timpani, so the left hand note is placed in parentheses to allow for a

39

sustained solo note in the right hand while not creating an unusual visual

disturbance in the left hand by eliminating a note.

Figure 35. Mvt. 3, mm.18-20, Reduction

m.39 The pianist’s left hand will continue the same rhythm it had since measure 11, and

the right hand has the option of playing a B to C tremolo or an E to F-sharp

tremolo. While it could potentially do both, the thin piano orchestration does not

need the thickness of so many notes, so only the B to C tremolo has been added to

the reduction. The other one would only emphasize an E, which the left hand is

already playing. By providing the emphasis of the B instead, an open fifth is

highlighted which is a feature the composer has been using throughout the

movement thus far.

m.48 Both the low string sections and wind sections provide an open fifth on the

downbeat of measure 48. On the second eighth note of the measure, the B (top

note of the fifth) drops out in both sections. The first version of the reduction

followed suit. However, this was somewhat awkward when I played it as it

created an inconsistent rotation of the hand. Measures 47 and 49 kept the open

fifth on the first and second eighth notes of the bar, so measure 48 was breaking

the pattern. Leaving the B out makes it more difficult for the hand to bounce back

40

and forth between the second and third eighth notes of the bar, so the B has been

added back into measure 48 for the later versions. While it does not exist in the

orchestra, the change is not audibly noticeable, and will slightly reduce practice

time. The same decision was made for measures 50 and 73.

Figure 36. Mvt. 3, mm.47-8, Low Winds/Strings.

Figure 37. Mvt. 3, mm.47-8, Reduction LH.

m.75 This measure shows an example of simply needing to pare down the reduction to

make it more comfortable for the pianist. The first version was an attempt to

include as many of the string voices as possible, while still making it feasible at

the piano. The result was still possible as hoped, but not comfortable. The

measure is rather accompanimental to the soloist, so it is not necessary to make it

difficult by including a few extra inner voices. The later version also removed

large intervallic leaps. Instead of quick leaps for both hands over the course of an

eighth note several times throughout the bar, there is now one hand position shift

for both hands when moving from the second to third eighth note.

41



m.83 The left hand in this measure is a transcription of the bass clarinet and viola parts

which double each other. The two instruments play a triplet sixteenth in the final

eighth note of the measure while the cellos enter with a descending bass line on

the same eighth note. The first reduction included all of these parts, but was

troublesome on the keyboard. The left hand can either play the triplet or the

descending bass line comfortably, but the combination is not practical. According

to the recording, the aural effect in this measure indicated the descending bass line

was more obvious.


42


mm.104-6 The second violins and violas begin tremolos in the preceding three bars. The

two instruments are divided between the two hands in the reduction. At measure

104, the two instruments become so close in range that they overlap. This

cannot be played by two hands because of the shared note. As they continued to

overlap, a composite of the two tremolos was created to be played with one

hand at the piano.

Figure 42. Mvt 3, mm.104-6, Strings.


mm.114-7 The upper strings play groupings of five sixteenth notes on the strong beats

of these measures. The first version of the reduction notated the groupings in

the same way, but due to the speed of the piece and the nature of the

figuration, it feels and sounds the same as playing a trill. The later version

43

changes all these groupings of five notes to trills, which is much simpler to

comprehend while reading. The same change has been made to the

groupings of six in measures 150-152.


Figure 45. Mvt. 3 mm.114-117, Final Reduction.

mm.121-2 The flutes play every note of these figurations in thirds. Quickly moving

parallel thirds are known to be technically challenging on the piano, and

they can showcase a pianist’s virtuosity when played well. However,

reductions should eliminate unnecessary technical challenges, and can be

arranged in ways to convince the listener they are hearing more than they

are. Parallel thirds are an example of where this can be done most often in

reductions. By eliminating all thirds except those on strong beats, the

listener has a sense of the harmonies and intervals without all of them being

played. This can free the rest of the hand to play the figuration with ease.

Measures 121 and 122 have been modified to only have thirds on the strong

beats.

44

Figure 46. Mvt. 3, mm.121-2, Reduction RH.

m.137 Beginning at measure 135, the brass section takes on the prominent role in the

orchestra, and is the primary material for the reduction. The first trombone’s B-

flat is an inner voice, played in the same rhythm as the bass trombone. The bass

trombone is transcribed for the pianist’s left hand. The trumpet melody, placed

in the pianist’s right hand, is a very different rhythm. Based on the spacing at

the keyboard, the B-flat can only be played by the right hand if kept in the same

octave. It has been added to the right hand part, but also given the same rhythm

as the right hand. As an inner voice, the change will not be noticeable, but the

harmony maintains its fullness by retaining it in the chord.

Figure 47. Mvt. 3, m.137, Brass.


45

mm.145-6 A comparison of the left hand between the first version and final version of

these measures show a change in the structure of the first two eighth notes.

The first version is a more accurate orchestral representation, but is very

awkward on the piano. A slight adjustment makes the passage easier to read,

better accommodates hand rotation, and creates a more consistent pattern as

these bars are immediately repeated. In such an accompanimental passage,

changing these inner voices does not have an audible effect.


Figure 50. Mvt. 3, mm.145-6, Final Reduction.

m.153 Beginning in measure 153, the low strings utilize many repeated notes. An exact

reproduction is not possible on the piano with the quick tempo. The sixteenths

have been notated as an alternation between the octave to keep the original

rhythm but allow technical ease. The starting note for each strong beat is in the

original octave, and the rotation begins on that note.

Figure 51. Mvt. 3, mm.153-4, Cello.

46


m.167 A forte-piano at the beginning of a bar in which there are no notes beyond the

down beat is not an ideal marking for a pianist, as they can only control the

initial attack of the note. The resonance from a large chord on the piano may

cause the entire measure to be at a high volume, or potentially cover a musical

partner. The orchestration here presents a problem dynamically for the pianist.

The downbeat of measure 167 is the last note of a phrase for many instruments

throughout the orchestra, all at a louder dynamic range and finishing with a

short eighth note. At the same time, another set of instruments have a softer

sustained note that begins on the downbeat. The ranges of the two parts overlap.

The reduction includes notation to indicate both the eighth notes and sustained

notes, and the fortepiano simply serves to indicate the musical idea the pianist

needs to depict. Based on this marking, the pianist should be able to determine

that the down beat needs to finish the phrase loudly and the remaining sound of

the sustained notes should be soft. An experienced pianist should be able to

control this by voicing the outer short notes while playing the sustained inner

notes softer, or flutter the sustain pedal to dampen the sound more than the

piano would naturally.

47


m.171 The sixteenths in the first violins include too many repeated notes to represent

in the reduction. The harmonic rhythm only changes on the eighth notes, so the

reduction reflects that rhythm.

Figure 54. Mvt. 3, m.171, Strings.

Figure 55. Mvt. 3, m.171, Reduction LH.

mm.194-7 The important roles to reproduce in these measures are the first violins

(marked soli) and the continuous eighth note rhythm from the strings. The

range of both these parts overlap completely, and may seem like one voice

48

would need to be removed. However, with only slight variation in the

notation and a few small decisions from the pianist, it can be reproduced

like the original orchestration quite well. The first violins have been

completely transcribed in the original range; while it may seem logical to

move it up an octave for comfort, the close interplay between the violins and

soloist would be changed and the intervals would be reversed. The violas

and cellos were also transcribed in their original range so as not to make it

sound too heavy an octave lower. If all of the tied violin notes are changed

to eighth notes, we are left with only three notes that overlap at the same

time between the two parts. To compensate for the lost ties, a tenuto

marking has been added to indicate the different sounds to be achieved

between the figures. The right hand can now play the entire violin figuration

with the hand close to the keyboard while the left hand bounces back and

forth on top of the right hand. The pianist can determine how one wants to

play the overlapping notes. Brief moments like these are not impossible to

find in solo piano music; the rhythmic pattern and melody happen to simply

cross paths and a pianist must determine which hand will be used to play the

note. Leaving this decision to the pianist is more effective than deleting a

note from the score, which would only create the visual confusion of a

broken pattern. It will likely be easier for the pianist to play the overlapping

notes in the right hand as part of the melody, so parentheses have been

added to the left hand notes.

49


mm.208-211 The horn melody that begins at the end of measure 208 takes priority in

the right hand of the reduction. I also wanted to emphasize the re-

occurring D-sharp in the bass along with the active sixteenths notes

spread across the orchestra. It is not possible to completely transcribe

both ideas, so a consolidation of the two was created. The D-sharp (re-

spelled in the reduction as an E-flat) is placed on each strong beat. The

beat is filled in with the remaining violin sixteenths placed an octave

lower. The violins were brought down so that the left hand could more

easily play the patterns without compromising the full sound of the lower

bass octaves. A busy texture is the desired effect from the sixteenths, so

the range should not greatly affect the result. When the bass becomes a

tremolo, the right hand continues the sixteenths.


50

CHAPTER VII

REDUCTION SCORE

104

REFERENCES

“Borivoj Martinic-Jercic.” Iowa State University. https://www.music.iastate.edu/ faculty/borivoj.php (accessed August 10, 2016). Cranmer, Philip. The Technique of Accompaniment. London: Dennis Dobson, 1970. DeMars, James. Violin Concerto. Score. 2008. “James DeMars: Composer.” jamesdemars.net (accessed August 10, 2016). Katz, Martin. The Complete Collaborator: The Pianist as Partner. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2009. Read, Gardner. Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice. 2nd ed. New York:

Taplinger Publishing Company, 1979. Spillman, Robert. The Art of Accompanying: Master Lessons from the Repertoire. New

York: Schirmer Books, 1985.

ironside, kristen deanna, d.m.a. james demars’s :...

Documents